Reducing Mental Health Emergency Services for Children Served Through California’s Full Service Partnerships

Abstract

There is strong evidence for the success of FSP's aggressive approach in reducing dangerous, increasing trajectories in MHES use. More research is needed, but key efficacious components within the program may be candidates for broader application when providing community-based, crisis-averting care for the most socially and economically vulnerable, seriously mentally ill children and youth.

Re‐examining mental health crisis intervention: A rapid review comparing outcomes across police, co‐responder and non‐police models

“…A longitudinal, quasi‐experimental, population‐level study ( n = 464, 880) on a California, U.S., children’s crisis prevention model found that intervention‐using children had higher use of mental health emergency services, including ED presentations, prior to the introduction of the model. Post‐crisis prevention model implementation, interaction terms showed significant decreases in mental health emergency services use (ages 11 to <15 (IRR = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.78–0.86, ages 15 to <18 (IRR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72–0.82; Cordell & Snowden, 2017). Another quasi‐experimental study on a youth mobile crisis team in Connecticut, U.S. found that youth who received mobile crisis services ( n = 2532) had a significant reduction in odds of a subsequent behavioural health ED visit compared with youth in the comparison sample (Fendrich et al., 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, more research is needed on rates of detainment in non‐police models. Studies using a comparator, particularly in child and youth mobile models, suggest a significant reduction in ED referrals among non‐police models (Alvarado et al., 2020; Cordell & Snowden, 2017; Fendrich et al., 2019) and reduced hospital stays (Mukherjee & Saxon, 2019; Newransky et al., 2019; Toot et al., 2011). Finally, many non‐police interventions reported a treatment or follow up component, which is likely an important aspect of holistic crisis care and ED diversion.…”

“…A pilot study of a youth urgent evaluation model in Brooklyn, New York, found a 10% decrease in school ED referrals from the year previous to implementation, and a 44% decrease in school ED referrals during school hours (Alvarado et al, 2020). Cordell & Snowden, 2017). Another quasi-experimental study on a youth mobile crisis team in Connecticut, U.S. found that youth who received mobile crisis services (n = 2532) had a significant reduction in odds of a subsequent behavioural health ED visit compared with youth in the comparison sample (Fendrich et al, 2019).…”

What is behind the closed door? A case illustration of working with social isolation in adolescents using Adaptive Mentalization‐Based Integrative Treatment (AMBIT)

“…Starting wraparound treatment along the lines of the AMBIT team approach as described above could at first seem resource-demanding and costly, but studies show that there is a low cost-effectiveness ratio in leaning toward wraparound approaches (Grimes et al, 2011). Studies exploring the effects of wraparound approaches, such as the AMBIT approach, show that groups that receive treatment with a wraparound method uses mental health emergency services significantly less compared to groups receiving conventional treatment (Cordell & Snowden, 2017). The above case and the exemplified approach and interventions hopefully can inspire health professionals to dare to venture into the realm of psychosocial wraparound team approaches when dealing with the complex cases of social isolation.…”

Whole Person Care in Underresourced Communities: Stakeholder Priorities at Long-Term Follow-Up in Community Partners in Care

“…18 Such approaches differ from traditional collaborative care models for depression, which are typically based in health care settings and rarely include social services as their main foci. While multi-sector integrated care approaches may have similarities to recovery-oriented treatment models implemented for severe mental illnesses through Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) 19,20 and related approaches, 21 most of these models are usually based in health systems rather than community-based networks. 22,23 Community-based multisector partnerships call for identifying and addressing health care needs in non-health care settings, such as churches, where care coordination could be challenging.…”